I would agree but the drain on the health care system that they have does have a negative effect on us as a whole.

I used to be convinced of this one, but now I'm not so sure. I bet a 50 year old employed taxpayer dying of a heart attack or complications of the 'beetus probably costs much less than an 85 year old who spent the last decade of his life in a nursing home drawing SS/Medicare.

Of course we also lose all of that 50 year old guy's potential contributions to society, so it's a healthcare win but social/tax loss.

Maybe we should just stop seeing people as lines on a balance sheet. I'd like to see people be healthier because I think they'd be less miserable, but I'm an outlier like that.

It seems to me that the Sanjuriu Martial Art is not in guestion, but, rather the character of Mr. Galt.
-AkidoMom

Maybe the problem is that we don't. This can be done from a household, work and/or national perspective.

In order to hold an asset on a balance sheet you are required to do a few things:

1. Maintain an accurate record of it's initial and ongoing cost.
2. Reflect a fair value based on it's current condition (highest and best use).
3. Regularly test for impairment.

i. If people were reminded about how much time, love, energy and yes, money, went into raising them and maintaining them as people maybe it could be a useful first step in fostering self-worth in those that are lacking. It might also be a good platform for addressing those that think the world owes them something.

ii. Fair Valuing a person would be difficult but it stands to reason that a healthy, educated, experienced, socially connected and happy person is far more valuable to a family/employer/country. An initial valuation would also highlight the potential value within the asset versus where it currently stands.

iii. Testing for impairment is also an evaluation for what can be improved to maintain/increase value. Things such as increasing health (diet/excercise), education etc. This would also help quantify a cost for not addressing short comings (you're depriving your family/friends/etc of $xxx by not getting your fat arse off the couch every now and then). Also constant re-evaluation highlights changes over time your actions (or lack of) is not only affecting you but those around you.

tl;dr If as much time was invested in evaluating people as assets (their worth, value and potential) as an asset on a corporate balance sheet then I believe we would be addressing these issues in a far more comprehensive and effective manner.

Holy crap I am actually going to try that. My weight loss progress has been slow and I fully attribute it to my sweet tooth a lack of self control. That being said I am still down 30lb from my heaviest.

It will totally work, but you have to be super diligent and you have to check EVERYTHING you would be surprised at the crap they put sugar in. Even things like multi-grain bread will have more sugar and corn syrup in it than fiber. Your typically good with fruit even if the sugars are more than the fiber as long as you go light on the crazy sweat ones like dates.
To help with craving control I have become a fan of the frozen banana. It can be blended up to approximate ice cream. One of my favorite snacks is a fozen banana blended with a table spoon or so of Peanut butter, 100% coca and unsweetened almond milk. The fat from the peanut butter and the sweetness of the banana are pretty satiating.
Weight loss tip fiber and fat hit that spot so that you don't crave things.

I used to be convinced of this one, but now I'm not so sure. I bet a 50 year old employed taxpayer dying of a heart attack or complications of the 'beetus probably costs much less than an 85 year old who spent the last decade of his life in a nursing home drawing SS/Medicare.

Of course we also lose all of that 50 year old guy's potential contributions to society, so it's a healthcare win but social/tax loss.

Maybe we should just stop seeing people as lines on a balance sheet. I'd like to see people be healthier because I think they'd be less miserable, but I'm an outlier like that.

I should be clear my statement has more to do with cost based on health care demand and less on say state funding or insurance cost of health care. The more people that need it the more scarce it is the harder it is to get in to see a health care provider.
Its cool to be all ignore the numbers and all but the truth is their is a limited number of open health care spots at any given moment it is a resource much like water, land, or food. So its all and good to be all hippy about this **** until you need to wait in an emergency room long past your due and have to pay way more because some fat **** didn't take care of them selves.
Don't get me wrong I am actually all for a state funded universal health care system, in fact its that belief that we as a society should take care of each other and achieve sustainable platforms for our needs. This is what pisses me off about these people, if you want society to help you, you better do everything you can to help yourself first.
For **** sake we live in the age of information how fucking hard is it to learn what to do to not being a fucking land whale? Oh right people don't want to know the truth they want to believe they can shove what ever **** they want down their throat and its perfectly ok. Well **** if that is the case your not being a good member of society and society shouldn't have to take care of you.

Not sure where you're going with the gun thing, but you're way off on your insinuation about my morals. You have no idea how much money I give to what charities - to consider me immoral because I can't or won't do more is just trolling.

It is nice that you give money to charity but that is not the topic here.

Originally Posted by submessenger

I never suggested they should be denied medical treatment. Let them have as much treatment for their self-induced condition that they can afford.

So you want to deny treatment for poor people?

Also people donÔŅĹt spent as much as they can afford. They will spent as much as they get credit and as much as family will pay. And if they cant pay it back, who will have to pay? Oh yes, society. Much better.

Originally Posted by cualltaigh

ii. Fair Valuing a person would be difficult but it stands to reason that a healthy, educated, experienced, socially connected and happy person is far more valuable to a family/employer/country. An initial valuation would also highlight the potential value within the asset versus where it currently stands.

All people are equal but some a more valuable. ;)

You might be wrong with it being difficult, it might be actually practically impossible. Sure you can try and make something up and maybe that would even have some limited use but will it be an objective measurement for the value a person has for society?

Though about the part of showing people what society hast done for them, all power to you. Especially the people that like to bitch about "big government" need this.

These people are not poor. How many starving people in the world would literally kill for just a small portion of what these gluttons have shoved into their mouths? Your priorities are severely displaced. Obesity is not a poor man's disease, it is the inevitable result of too much wealth.

(edit) I can't believe I just argued against being too rich... please shame me publicly.

You might be wrong with it being difficult, it might be actually practically impossible. Sure you can try and make something up and maybe that would even have some limited use but will it be an objective measurement for the value a person has for society?

We already do that
see this
[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Euromoenterogsedler.jpg/756px-Euromoenterogsedler.jpg[/IMG]
Your ability to generate money is directly related to what you provide society. We can get all touch feely and **** but at the end of the day it boils down to this. Its how we as a society place "value" now you can certainly argue about our fucked up priorities as a society with certain individuals but in the end it is how we as a society measure our access to resources and measure of what peoples time and the what not is worth.

Not all people are created equal I am sick of hearing that bullshit there are simply people who are better for society than others. How we treat those differences is a whole different argument.

These people are not poor. How many starving people in the world would literally kill for just a small portion of what these gluttons have shoved into their mouths? Your priorities are severely displaced. Obesity is not a poor man's disease, it is the inevitable result of too much wealth.

(edit) I can't believe I just argued against being too rich... please shame me publicly.

Now you sound reasonable.

In the richer parts of the world though, you can be obese while living from welfare. Also medical fees can even become a problem for "middle class" people.
As we can produce food quite cheaply these days, obesity isnít exactly a problem of the higher classes anymore.

You could try to argue that the money for medical treatment of obesity could be better spent in developing nations where people are starving. This could be theoretically reasonable to say but in practice it isnít even possible to link the obesity to the illness people have. Obese people have just an higher risk of getting health issue. Just like people that donít sleep enough, smoke and so on.